ROFLMAO at "punted"
Skrmetti did not do any such thing. The majority explained in precise detail why troons can NEVER make a successful equal protection claim.
First, ACB explained that you cannot even define what a troon is. Some, like Tony Reed, say that a troon is someone who has not trooned out yet, but might troon out in the future. Tony Reed, also says that a troon is someone who identifies as a woman, but does not have to have dysphoria, take horemones, or have surgery. Others like Banana Wu says you cannot be a troon unless you go all the way and have vagionoplasty and FFS. Banana Wu also says that you cannot be a troon unless you satisify DSM IV or earlier diagnostic criteria. Wu asserts that DSM V defintions are "invalid". These views are all irrecncilable. If you cannot identify what a troon even is, you cannot determine whether a heightened standard of scrutiny should be applied to them.
Second, Alito noted that the Court has not recognized any new quasi suspect classification under the equal protection clause and the troons have offered no persuasive reason to do so now.
Third, ACB expained that if you cannot identify an individual troon, you necessarily cannot identify a group of troons. If you cannot identify the group, you cannot establish historical discrimination or political disenfranchizement among the group.